I think we need to go back to the principle of Property Rights. A company is the property of its owner, not the employees. The owner should be able to choose with whom he wants toa associate with on his property, including to fire, not promote or blacklist certain workers. However, pure discrimation is bad for business should the business owner chose less capable staff over more capable workers of a colour he does not like.
As I read this, I could imagine the veins bulging on the foreheads of the Leftist Carsonites.
Again, we come to this fallacy, this illusion, that a company is a thing, rather than an activity and a continuous choice. A person has the right, of course, to freely choose who he associates with in business. However, you can only choose from what’s available, and if the workers available all agree to only accept a certain minimum of compensation, you’ll just have to pay them what they ask or find some alternative. They are fully within their rights to do so. I don’t really see how your point has anything to do with the discussion.
If you are trying to make an argument for the current situation, rather than in general, your argument again fails. You can’t demand that workers not use the force of law to maintain standards for themselves when you use the force of law to create artificial corporate entities that can sue and be sued, have ownership rights, create fictional shares of their fictional selves to raise revenue, go into debt, and protect you from liability. Your workers’ compensation laws protect you if your minimal safety precautions fail.
When you operate without taking advantage of anything outside of the truly free market, then you can whine about unions. Until then, they’re just doing an inadequate job of leveling the playing field.
I think what he meant, was that company = capital, the capital (aka the company) is the property of the owner, not the shared collective property of the workers. I think that’s what he meant.
That’s right and we should also not forget that the bodies of laborers, their capacity to labor is the property of the workers and not the company it’s owners or the managers. So if they chose to withhold their labor, in order to bargain for better wages or conditions that should be fine as long as they do not initiate violence. Don’t you agree?
They most certainly do have the right to withhold their labor. At the same time, the employer most certainly has the right to respond by terminating said employee and refusing to associate with that person any more. Also, that person certainly has the right to take their labor elsewhere and try to sell it for a better price.
And even then, they were inefective. Take, for example, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers. They spent years trying to get their demands met through strikes. This failed miserably. Then they got governemnt to intervene on their behalf. This also failed to improve situations. Finally, they realized what Mises had been saying for decades: The consumer is god. They took their case the the consumers, and the consumers forced the orchard owners to meet the UFW’s demands.